January 25, 2013

By Rosalind S. Helderman and David Nakamura, Friday, January 25, 9:36 AM

A working group of senators from both parties is nearing agreement on broad principles for overhauling the nation’s immigration laws, representing the most substantive bipartisan effort toward comprehensive legislation in years.

The six members have met quietly since the November election, most recently on Wednesday. Congressional aides stressed there is not yet final agreement, but they have eyed next Friday as a target date for a possible public announcement.

The talks mark the most in-depth negotiations involving members of both parties since a similar effort broke down in 2010 without producing a bill.
“We have basic agreement on many of the core principles,” Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), a member of the group, said this week. “Now we have to draft it. It takes time.”

“The group we’ve been meeting with — and it’s equal number of Democrats and Republicans — we’re real close,” added Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), another member of the group.

... “What has been absent in the time [since] he put principles forward is a willingness by Republicans to move forward with comprehensive immigration reform,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said Friday. “He hopes that dynamic has changed and there are indications what was once a bipartisan effort to push forward. . .will again be a bipartisan effort to do so.”

Past efforts begun amid similarly high hopes have sputtered. But members of both parties increasingly see changes to the nation’s troubled immigration system as an area most likely to draw bipartisan agreement at a time when Congress is deeply divided on gun control, spending and taxes.

The optimism is spurred by the sense that the political dynamics have shifted markedly since the last two significant bipartisan efforts failed. In 2007, a bill crafted in the Senate died after failing to win support of 60 members despite backing from then-president George W. Bush. Many Republicans, and some centrist Democrats, opposed that effort because it offered a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a veteran of the 2007 effort who is part of the current working group, said Republican attitudes have dramatically shifted since the party’s defeat at the polls in November. Obama won more than 70 percent of the vote among Latinos and Asians, and a growing number of GOP leaders believe action on immigration is necessary to expand the party’s appeal to minority groups. ...

Also included in the new Senate group are Schumer, who chairs the key Senate subcommittee where legislative action will begin; Graham; Robert Menendez (D-N.J.); and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). Two others, Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Michael F. Bennet (D-Colo.), have also been involved in some talks.

Their timetable would aim for a bill to be written by March or April and potentially considered for final passage in the Senate as early as the summer. Proponents believe adoption in the GOP-held House would be made easier with a strong bipartisan vote in the Senate.

The working group’s principles would address stricter border control, better employer verification of workers’ immigration status, new visas for temporary agriculture workers and expanding the number of visas available for skilled engineers. They would also include a call to help young people who were brought to the country illegally as children by their parents become citizens and to normalize the status of the nation’s 11 million illegal immigrants.

But obstacles abound. For instance, Rubio has said he believes immigrants who came to the country illegally should be able to earn a work permit. But he has said they should be required to seek citizenship through existing avenues, and only after those who have come to the country legally.

Democrats and immigration advocates fear that approach could result in wait-times stretching for decades, creating a class of permanent legal residents for whom the benefits of citizenship appear unattainable. They have pushed to create new pathways to citizenship specifically available to those who achieve legal residency as part a reform effort.

It is not yet clear if the Senate group will endorse a mechanism allowing such people to eventually become citizens — something Obama is expected to champion. Schumer said it would be “relatively detailed,” but would not “get down into the weeds.”

A source close to Rubio said he joined the group in December at the request of other members only after they agreed their effort would line up with his own principles for reform, which he outlined in an interview with the Wall Street Journal three weeks ago.

His ideas have since been embraced by conservatives, including some longtime foes of providing legal status to those who have come to the country illegally.
As a possible 2016 presidential contender widely trusted on the right, Rubio’s support could be key to moving the bipartisan effort.

And while Rubio and other Republicans have said they would prefer to split up a comprehensive immigration proposal into smaller bills that would be voted on separately, the White House will pursue comprehensive legislation that seeks to reform the process in a single bill.

“I doubt if there will be a macro, comprehensive bill,” said Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), who supported the 2007 effort. “Anytime a bill’s more than 500 pages, people start getting suspicious. If it’s 2,000 pages, they go berserk.”

But in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on Friday, Republican Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, strongly supports a single comprehensive bill, writing that “Congress should avoid quick fixes.”

Schumer said Friday that a single package will be key for passage. “We’ll not get it done in pieces,” he said. “Every time you do a piece, everyone says what about my piece and you get more people opposing it.” ...

“The president needs to lead, and then the Republicans have a choice: Are they going to do what they did in the last term and just be obstructionists?” said Eliseo Medina, secretary-treasurer of the Service Employees International Union, which spent millions recruiting new Hispanic voters this year. “Well, that didn’t work too well in November. Do the Republicans want the president not to get the credit? The best way to share the credit is for them to step up and engage and act together with the president. But it’s their choice. ”

The 2013 Amnesty won't be spun in the media like the 1986 Amnesty, which had an element of "Well, let's try this and see if it works." No, the 2013 Amnesty will be portrayed as a milestone in the ongoing surrender of evil white men to the morally superior vibrant new America.

"A bipartisan group of Senators is planning to introduce a bill that allows the H-1B visa cap to rise automatically with demand to a maximum of 300,000 visas annually. This 20-page bill, called the Immigration Innovation Act of 2013 or the 'I-Squared Act of 2013,' is being developed by Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), and Chris Coons (D-Del.). It may be introduced next week. Presently, the U.S. has an H-1B visa cap of 65,000. There are another 20,000 H-1B visas set aside for advanced degree gradates of U.S. universities, for 85,000 in total. Under the new bill, the base H-1B cap would increase from 65,000 to 115,000. But the cap would be allowed to rise automatically with demand, according to a draft of the legislation."

The Speaker can block the house from voting on the bill, even if it would pass with the support of 195 democrats and 40 republicans. Under the old "Hastart Rule" he would since the majority of his party opposes it. That rule was violated recently on the recent bush tax cut expiration vote, though that is a pretty exceptional circumstance involving Democrats having leverage because of an expiring law.

McCain has interestingly moved to the right on this issue and several others since he lost in 2008.

The pro-amnesty Wall Street toady Jeff Flake is a huge disappointment. Most of the Arizona GOP is anti-amnesty, but the Wall Street faction has amazing funding. I am doubtful that there are 40 anti amnesty republicans left in the senate to mount a filibuster. Lindsay Graham may back off amnesty if a primary competitor emerges, though he risks losing his Wall Street funding which he also needs.

Democratic senators from WV, IN, ND, LA, and MT are possible no votes as well, but they will be reluctant to join a filibuster.

Let's face it, both parties never wanted to boot them out. so we are having another legalization discussion. Its funny that Republicans are so devoted to tax cuts but they want to legalized people that have a history being higher on the dole, oh well.

'Rubio has said he believes immigrants who came to the country illegally should be able to earn a work permit. But he has said that they should be required to seek citizenship through existing avenues, and only after those who came to the country legally.'

OT, but this might help explain why our environmentalists are missing in action on the immigration debate.

Bindi Irwin, the daughter of the late Crocodile Hunter, recently submitted a 1000 word essay for Secretary of State Clinton's e-journal. Bindi wrote about overpopulation, but apparently ran afoul of the ruling orthodoxy.

The 14-year-old wildlife campaigner said she was "saddened" and "frustrated" after being forced to withdraw a 1000-word essay she wrote on the overpopulation of the planet for Secretary Clinton's e-journal.

No doubt Bindi knows more about nature and the enviroment than most of us, but like the Sierra Club she is now learning that certain matters, though true in fact, must not be discussed.

"When I got the essay back after they edited it, it was completely different. I hadn't said anything they had put in ... my words were twisted and altered and changed. I was a little bit shocked to tell you the truth," she said.

"I was really sad and I think it was more frustration because I'm trying so hard to get the message across and I guess some people don't want to listen.

"The true test of freedom of speech is when someone says something you don't like."

I couldn't have said it better myself. Of course I am somewhat disappointed with this little girl. I figured after her experience with the machine, our side would have a convert. Sadly Bindi had this to say about Hillary.

"It hasn't damaged my admiration for Hillary Clinton. I would love to see her running for president one day because she's doing a really great job.

Hunsdon wrote: "new pathways to citizenship specifically available to those who achieve legal residency as part a reform effort=Amnesty."

Ben Tillman pointed out: No one is proposing citizenship for the illegals. They're proposing super-citizenship, which involves all sorts of privileges and immunities that are not afforded to ordinary (White) citizens.

From what I can tell we already open borders and zero desire to enforce the immigration laws. Amnesty will just give the Democrats millions of new voters. Of course, Rich Republicans will get a LEGAL RELIABLE source of cheap labor (via some kind of guest worker nonsense) - but that's small potatoes.

The idea that amnesty will earn Republicans votes among Hispanics is absurd. Even if they care, the credit will go the Democrats and Obama.

So, why Steve are the Republicans SO SET on amnesty. Is it just rich donors & corrupt politicians? Or are Republicans really that dumb?

The 14-year-old wildlife campaigner said she was "saddened" and "frustrated" after being forced to withdraw a 1000-word essay she wrote on the overpopulation of the planet for Secretary Clinton's e-journal.

No doubt Bindi knows more about nature and the enviroment than most of us, but like the Sierra Club she is now learning that certain matters, though true in fact, must not be discussed.

"When I got the essay back after they edited it, it was completely different. I hadn't said anything they had put in ... my words were twisted and altered and changed. I was a little bit shocked to tell you the truth," she said.

"I was really sad and I think it was more frustration because I'm trying so hard to get the message across and I guess some people don't want to listen.

"The true test of freedom of speech is when someone says something you don't like."

I couldn't have said it better myself. Of course I am somewhat disappointed with this little girl. I figured after her experience with the machine, our side would have a convert. Sadly Bindi had this to say about Hillary.

"It hasn't damaged my admiration for Hillary Clinton. I would love to see her running for president one day because she's doing a really great job.That's not unbelieveable until the Reagan Presidency enviromentalists on overpopulation were winning and they could talk about not allowing people to come from other countries in those days.

Probably both, Scott Baugh head of the Republican Party in Orange County is aware that illegal Hispanics have children in the schools that have from 60 to 86 percent on the free and reduce lunch programs but he rather hit a mildy asian town like Irvine which is mildy liberal but did elect a conservative Korean and a white conservative woman. The Republicans like the Hispanics baby numbers its like the Democratic Party in the 19th century like the baby numbers of the Irish.

Well, I know a lot of rank and file Tea Party are against it but the ones in charge of major Tea Party organizations are very pro-business and they have gotten the tea party to think on things like taxes, gun control and Obamacare and calling people socialists.

I'm friends with an AZ Republican Party big shot, and he says there's a civil war inside the AZ GOP between the Wall Street faction (represented by Flake) and the Liberty Wing. Cardin had to pay his own campaign because the AZ GOP refused to send any money his way.

Flake is a piece of shit neo-liberal who only started making the 'right' noises about immigration when Cardin mounted his primary run. The only time he talked about immigration was in the same breath with 'reform'. Fuck him.

I sent Cardin an email and I sent him and his (accessible) flack several tweets offering advice. Didn't hear back. He lost. If he'd done things my way, he would have had a better chance of winning. He's a loser: he doesn't know how to do things and he's not willing to accept advice.

Regarding the post, in case anyone would like to do something, look for leverage. You can write letters to Congress all day long and not get anywhere. But, if you can discredit one leading pro-amnesty hack, that would lessen their ability to push amnesty.

In the past few days, I've shown how Steve Jobs' widow is wrong and tried to turn others against her plan. If I could get a small amount of help, that effort might help reduce Silicon Valley's PR efforts on behalf of amnesty. For instance, @svangel hyper her plan. If several people helped out, we could make @svangel look bad to its fans, which could be broadened out to send a message to other tech people: if you support amnesty, you'll end up looking bad.

At the same time, I've sent out dozens of tweets showing how @MarcoRubio is wrong. If conservatives on Twitter would turn against their leaders who support his plan, that would also greatly help block amnesty.

If you want to help block amnesty, you have to get out there. But, you have to do it in a low effort/high reward way.

I keep hearing this number 11,000,000. How do they know this? It could just as easily be 22,000,000. And why do they call it "immigration reform"? It is not about immigration at all. It is about illegal aliens, what Jews in Israel call "criminal infiltrators". Why don't they just call it a surrender amnesty to illegals? This all goes back to Reagan in 1986. They should never have done that. It set a precedent. Once you let the camel's nose in the tent...

The only acceptable immigration reform is a resumption of the 1950s operation Wetback(though with a less offensive name)

What deeply ignorant politically correct horse poop!!!

Shame on you!!!

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mojado

Funny the word mojado meaning "wet one" or wet back remains a term of pride and endearment in Mexican Open Border culture. The equivalent of "homey" "bro" homes, my n***a, redneck ... in the proper context

The likewise the expression "Anchor Baby" comes directly from a famous 1977 pro-Open Border propaganda film financed by the Ford Foundation called Alamabrista directed by Robert M Young.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alambrista!

The film's preposterous climatic scene is of a pregnant illegal alien in labor chaining herself to a pole at the border crossing dropping her kid on US soil and then telling the Gringo border agents that there in nothing they can do about her jackpot baby.

Alamabrista is a stable of Chicano studies programs. It has probably been shown in every pro Open Borders lefty Church basement.

No wonder mothers of "anchor babies" are celebrated in Mexican border culture as if they were the virgin mary herself.

The slang meaning for Alamabrista is Fence Jumper or Fence cutter. Like mojado it is a honorific in Mexican border culture.

http://www.waywordradio.org/alambrista/

In Mexican luche libre wresting a character going by the name Alamabrista taking on the la migra is as common as Rocky or Hulk.

In fact Alambrista is the Mexican ROCKY!!!EL ALAMBRISTA: THE FENCE JUMPERhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HjFF0PX2Z8

Weback, mojado, anchor baby, alambrista, fence jumper... are only politically incorrect when used by those opposed to Open Borders.

If I remember correctly, the 1986 amnesty as promoted by Reagan (which, in hindsight must be regarded as the coup-de-grace of white America), was sold as a double-edged sword. 'Yes' said Reagan and the gang,'there will be a one-off humanitarian amnesty as a noble act of kindness towards all those marginalized behind the shadows toilers who omly wish to follow the American dream, but in exchange for this noble concession Congress will do the uttmost to enforce immigration law hard, and stop a mass inflow of illegals ever happening again.'

Well in true political fashion the amnesty was granted, but the second part - the deal with America - was never, ever seriously considered and quietly forgotten. Illegals kept flooding in at a growing rate.

I am trying to figure out what political party will arise out of the ashes of the Republicans. Maybe a more populist, Southern based conservative party. Maybe the Libertarians start getting a little traction. The Democrats will start looking like the PRI did historically, running a one party state.

Well, since many illegal immirgants tend to have children more than the general population maybe its based upon the kids enrollment and 5 numbers per family. Santa Ana which has had many illegal immirgants since the early 1980's has a high househould number of people between 4.5 to 4.8 houshold per person, the average US City is between 2.7 to 2.9 per household.

MCCain was a big supporter but the base at the time had more control over the issue at the time. Romney wasn't really interested in a legalizaton process but the staff he was given by the Republican elite and Paul Ryan were, however if Romeny won the Repulician based might have had more influence. However, Bush who in some ways was worst than Obama has been cheering it on with his brother and Norquist who is worshipped by a lot of Republicians because he doesn't want to rise taxes has always like high immirgation.

Another thing is Silcon Valley doesn't have the problems of the Central Valley area so rich liberals like helping illegal immirgants. In Silcon Valley they are maids and janiors that clean up the office buildings not like Los Angeles where they even still use them in low skilled manufactoring jobs that have not been shipped overseas. Electric assembly jobs, meatpacking yes there is some meatpacking in the Inland Empire. In the So Calif area in ads they want Shippers and Receivers to know English which means that the jobs that are not shipped overseas with not much skilled are being done by legal or illegal Hispanic immirgants not the native born or some legal or illegal asians.

As Canadian, I may have fragmentary and inaccurate views on this, but I really wonder why there is so much debate about reforms to an immigration law that obviously is not enforced in it's present form.

Both our countries are importing vast numbers of people who obviously can't make things work in their home countries, yet are viewed as potential net contributors here. It is now clear that this situation will be difficult to change thru the ballot box.

The problem is the Republicians are even doing bad in Suburbia, Obama like many Democratics now wants people to live more in big cities and less in the burbs for the enviroment or to help lower income areas being more upper like in Chicago and so forth. The Republicans don't appeal much outside of the South and some other places in the Suburbs. 3 of the 10 largest counties that are more Suburban than Urban Romeny only one two Maricopia in Arizona and Orange in California, he lost San Diego which until 2008 usually went Republican. San Diego is different from much of California since its a purple county and not heavily blue it can predict how people in the midwest well vote than Los Angeles or San Fran do.

Well, how about the Republican House or a Republican Senator proposing an amendment and conditioning support on acceptance of that amendment. The amendment would prohibit any legal or illegal immigrant who obtains citizenship, or their descendants, from ever claiming Super Citizenship, or the right to be preferred in admission, hiring or other private or public selection based on membership in an underrepresented minority.

"Its really sad that Obama was elected, I'm sure President McCain or Romney would've stopped this in its tracks."

guess we'll have to wade through many dumb comments like this in the coming months, as republicans surrender on amnesty.

in the scenario where romney wins, there is no immediate hardcore pursuit of amnesty. because in this scenario, the republicans WON. they don't IMMEDIATELY turn to gun control, homosexual marriage, women in combat, and making all the mexicans legal so the high unemployment rate can get even worse. their first order of business is probably to approve keystone XL, approve exports of natural gas, then prepare a budget.

the reason republicans are going along with amnesty now is because they LOST, and are somehow convinced that "getting the mexicans to like us" is their path back to winning elections.

when an NFL team WINS the superbowl, they don't immediately fire the head coach and trade the starting quarterback. those might be kneejerk reactions from a team that LOSES the superbowl, which they come to regret later, as the guys they ditched turn out to be a lot better than the new guys they brought in due to panic.

the republicans lost the superbowl and are making a huge mistake of firing their head coach and quarterback and bringing in marco rubio to run the team because they want to "go in a different direction" and they, very mistakenly, think "rubio gives the team the best chance to win".

"I keep hearing this number 11,000,000. How do they know this? It could just as easily be 22,000,000."

It will be, and much more. Because once they are legal, well, then their wife must also be allowed to come for family reunification. And their parents. And their 5 kids. And their uncles, aunts, etc. Its never ending. This problem was already discovered with the Reagan amnesty. And all it did was hand over more Dem voters and bring in people who are net tax eaters. So of course, the treason crowd and the elites all think its a great idea.

12 million. For a decade or more the accepted number of illegal immigrants in the USA was 12 million. In the last few months it has shifted, in all media outlets at all times, to 11 million. What gives? Is this an example of a big enough lie being told often enough that people believe it?

(Not that 12 million was anywhere near the truth either, probably, but the brazenness of this collective decision to shave a million off the total is egregious.)

We have a few months before this is voted on in the Senate, so there is time. everyone needs to call senators and congressmen, senators first. Pat Toomey will get a call per week from me. Every congressman in Pennsylvania will get calls from me. Red state dems like Minchin, Hagan, Landrieu and Baucus will be very important.

During the 70-71 recession when Nixon was President, the MSM went berserk with stories about unemployed engineers and scientists. PhD engineers were supposedly being forced to drive taxi cabs because of the lack of engineering jobs.The actual unemployment rate for engineers from the Household survey was 2.2% in 1970 and 2.9% in 1971. If one were to gather up these exaggerated unemployment stories about STEMs during the 70-71 recession, it could be most embarrassing for the MSM of today.

The actual unemployment rate for engineers was almost double under the Obama recession than under the 70-71 recession. The MSM has done a flip flop.

Actually, a President McCain or Romney would have been forced to stop Amnesty. Of course they would want it. But being Republicans would not have: the media, elites, universities, Hollywood, Dems, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and everyone else on their side.

All Reps have is the Rep voters, when push comes to shove. That's why Bush's Amnesty plan was tossed. He would have paid too great a price. And why Obama pushed gay marriage, gays in the military, gun control, women in combat, etc. Because HIS base wants it.

Elections matter. That's the way it is.

Get ready for mass amnesty and super-citizenship to illegals denied Whites. That's the whole point.

I'm an illegal immigrant and, like most of the other immigrants I know, I am concerned with being able to work and travel freely - the whole citizenship path aspect of it is not a priority and never was....

Well, Republcians can get around it by legalizing illegal immirgant but not allowing them to become citzens. The Bushes in their heart of hearts wanted to legalized Mexicans more than Obama, sorry folks. Jeb and George at still at it, remmber Clinton could not do a complete legalization but mimi ones. I actually dislike the Bushes more than Obama since they prefer Latins over whites. Obama is more honest on this issue he prefers upper-middle whites that are liberal over most whites.

the republicans lost the superbowl and are making a huge mistake of firing their head coach and quarterback and bringing in marco rubio to run the team because they want to "go in a different direction" and they, very mistakenly, think "rubio gives the team the best chance to win".

We are no longer governed. We are ruled. Worse, countless millions of Americans vote for more, not for less, state power, and these fools, convinced of their moral superiority, have the Pied Pipers of Media-Pravda making the path to national suicide entertaining for them.

The ridiculous thing about George bush is that he's from highland park Texas. I knew a Hispanic woman who got pulled over by hp police just for driving through it (she seemed to feel it was a race-based stop). It is an unusually white community smack in the middle of and surrounded by Dallas. It maintains separate schools and government, while meanwhile the rest of Dallas, with poor schools and falling apart infrastructure, is overrun by the excess of immigrants the bushes are fond of. It appears that the 120ish iq bushes (knowing just enough to be dangerous) have taken the elite/multicultural bait, and are proud of congratulating themselves for their lack of prejudice. Put two gold stars by their names.

It is not just cheap labor as a motive but also repatriations. Repatriations are a big issue with Latin elites, with whom the bushes trade favors.

If you're black, hispanic, an aggressively ambitious female or gay then the more Dems in power the better.

If you're rich, or even upper middle class then the more Repubs in power the better.

If you are a white male or white normal female who makes less than 60K a year then you have no party representing you. Whoever wins will screw you, it's like hitting on 16 against a Jack, you lose either way so you may as well vote based on who's more photogenic or whatever else.

What's so fascinating here is that I think a rather sizable part of the country is lower-middle and lower class white normal yet there's no party that isn't ACTIVELY out to harm them. It's amazing.

I'd run myself but with nothing to back me up but a laptop connection and my worthless American citizenship I think I can count on being in jail within a year of declaring my candidacy.

Not to worry, because real conservatives are focused on the issues that really matter, like defending their right to own 30-round magazines and keeping taxes low on rich people. Oh and the Superbowl...

"The Speaker can block the house from voting on the bill, even if it would pass with the support of 195 democrats and 40 republicans."

Except that John Boehner works for the Chamber of Commerce and, iirc, voted for the 2006 Amnesty.

Oh, and ddn't Jeff Flake and John McCain both convert to a tough on borders position? How silly I was to trust them.

"The only acceptable immigration reform is a resumption of the 1950s operation Wetback(though with a less offensive name) "

Oh my god, you mean they came up with an offensive term to refer to people who broke the law? Why how dare we do or say anything to offend people who break the law?

Could we stop bitching for a second and, ya know, figure out ways to stop this?

1) Call your congressmen/senators. Besides your own, call John Boehner and Mitch McConnell's offices, too. Call multiple offices, not just one. Call them from work, from home, and from your cell phone. In fact, put their office numbers in your cell phone, so you don't have to look them up.

Anyone here done that yet? I have.

2) Email them, too. It's not like they keep track and compare the callers to the emailers. Vloume is on your side.

3) Talk to friends and family members about this. Print or email them a compelling article on the subject. Ask them to call and email their congressmen. Include the phone numbers and links for them.

4) FInd a local pro-enforcement group and get involved. These groups are largely working class types. They don't have million dollar K Street lobbyists on their side. They need brains wherever they can get them.

5) Print up flyers with above mentioned articles and leave them on your neighbors doors. Get the word out any way you can.

From the Yahoo News article someone linked above: "After a meeting with leadership of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus on Friday, the White House announced in a statement that President Barack Obama will travel to Las Vegas, Nev., on Tuesday to speak about immigration reform."

So to summarize, Barack Obama will fly to Nevada on Tuesday to tell the people of that state, wwhich has a 10.2% unemployment, that they need more workers to fill the jobs Nevadans aren't doing.

I keep hearing this number 11,000,000. How do they know this? It could just as easily be 22,000,000. And why do they call it "immigration reform"?"

During the last push for "immigration reform" the amnesty supporters told us that we had to do something to deal with the (as they said) 11-20 million illegal aliens. Imagine that - proposing a "solution" to a problem, the magnitude of which they did not even know to within a factor of two.

in the scenario where romney wins, there is no immediate hardcore pursuit of amnesty. because in this scenario, the republicans WON. they don't IMMEDIATELY turn to gun control, homosexual marriage, women in combat, and making all the mexicans legal so the high unemployment rate can get even worse."

You are assuming that Republican party (as distinct from Republican voters) cares about the invasion of our country by illegal aliens, or about unemployment for that matter.

They don't. They don't work for you. Your opinion is of no concern to them. Your job is just to cast your vote every four years for whomever is next in line.

The ridiculous thing about George bush is that he's from highland park Texas. I knew a Hispanic woman who got pulled over by hp police just for driving through it (she seemed to feel it was a race-based stop). It is an unusually white community smack in the middle of and surrounded by Dallas.

George Bush is not "from" Highland Park, and he doesn't live there now. He lives in Dallas about 4 miles north of HP. And it is not an all-White area, either. Bush's property abuts four others, and one of those properties is owned by a couple that includes a Korean (wife).

It is true that HP police are zealous, and they will run your plate for warrants if they pull up behind you, but that's not where Bush lives.

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.